Charlie Rose

Patrick Hunter  11/27/2007 11:02 PM Report

You recently interviewed Karl Rove, a man that deserves many times over to be behind bars--indefinitely. You sat there like an imbecile while he made absurd claims about how the Iraq War was started by the Congress.

First, he should not be granted any air time.

Second, you should have thrown him out of the studio for insulting you.

Third, he knew he could count on you to be the gutless ass-kisser you have always been and would not seriously contradict him. If you tried, he would have shown great irritation until you continued to grovel.

It is no wonder it was so easy for Bush to invade Iraq.

Troubled  10/03/2007 03:30 AM Report

If half of what these men say is true, then both the administration and Tenet have failed not only themselves but our country. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died because of the decision to invade Iraq.

This was a war of choice. It was not necessary. And what brought it about? Reckless jingoism, incompetence, but above all the inability or unwillingness to do the right thing. What a long, dark hour this is in American history.

X  05/18/2007 10:34 AM Report

First, I would like to say that I wish anybody who leaves a comment would STOP COMPLIMENTING THE VIDEO, or leaving comments as though Charlie is going to read them. He is very busy, what with talking to people all stinking the time.

Second, he is entitled to say, by my estimate, as much as he freaking wants to say. It's his show. It's not called "The Charlie Rose Interview Hour." But, "A Conversation with Some Schmuck."

Tom W  05/02/2007 05:40 AM Report

It seems to me all the information in this interview has been reported before by various reputable journalists, be it in Time Mag., NY Times and Wash Post. The Reagan era neo-cons, as we refer to them now,(Cheney Bush Rumsfeld,etc) were assembled by proxy by the republican party insiders, sold to the public very well with the help of Carl Rove and the right wing of the supreme court who basically cleared the way for Bush to take office after the Florida vote recounts. The 9/11 attack on us was all the excuse needed to put a premeditated policy plan of the Iraq war into effect. This plan was written back around the time of the Gulf War when the Reagan-Bush era was ending. Understanding the events and repercussions after the 9/11 attack of a wealth and power seeking group of politicians with obvious personal interests in oil and defense industries seems easy enough due to all the facts that have and will come out about this embarassing administration. Thanks Charlie for your continued great work on helping us understand so many important topics that face U.S. citizens every day. I for one appreciate the way you conduct your interviews. If you just went for the jugular on your guests, like some want, you would not be held in such high esteem by so many viewers and guests. Think for yourselves people, he gets the info out with great tact, skill and intelligence.

Rosemary Marker  05/01/2007 08:15 PM Report

Charlie,

Your program of April 18th covering the latest in Cancer progress was excellent. Thank you so much. It should be shown again! Your guest did a good job of explaining where we are now and what direction of inhibitors we are taking. Keep up the good work! I never miss your shows.

Paul Wisner  05/01/2007 06:36 PM Report

Charlie Rose: A good thing you never practised law because you missed almost every opportunity for effective cross examination, truth seeking. All the guests were on the pro-Tenet, anti-administration side of the question and you made no effective attempt to probe their bias, hardly any at all. Really a sad example of how unreliable current reporting is, shallow and biased. I hope to live to read more honest, historical judgments. Brennan kept reminding all of you that the policy-makers decide as the ELECTED public officials and you did not get it or chose to ignore it. Absolutely one of your worst programs. You pretend to be balanced but then reveal your anti-administration bias in a program like this.

Garrett  04/28/2007 04:46 PM Report

In response to Lance, I believe this followup episode is an example of how his topic/guest choices themselves are the subtle explanation. Moreover, in his interview with President Bush, he explained that it was one of many perspectives he would solicit on his show and hoped to have the President back. While there may have been an explicit "go easy" agreement, it was probably unnecessary as Charlie's wisdom no doubt helps him to implicitly recognize appropriate boundaries. Perhaps Jim Lehrer's recent interview helped him understand which types of questions would allow for the most full responses; as Charlie noted (and in contrast to Lehrer's I'm sure), the interview surprisingly lasted about twenty minutes longer than planned. I would challenge those who contend the Bush interview was weak by ascerting that there is more to be gleaned from Bush's natural facial expressions and intuitive explanations during extended fluff responses than in those where challenging questions necessitate critical thought, thereby eliciting confined, contrived, and ultimately uninformative answers.

Paul DeMarco  04/28/2007 09:18 AM Report

This show was stunning. Kudos Charlie!

Any doubts that the Bush Administration lied to the American people and the world in the lead up to the Iraq war should be erased from even the most die-hard Bush supporters. (If only they watched PBS.)

At Charlie's prompting the former Chief of Staff of the CIA Brennan:

1. all but calls Dick Cheney a serial liar and,

2. acknowledges that the intelligence regarding the supposed Iraqi WMD was fixed around a predetermined policy of invasion.

I wish the transcripts were available so I could get the quotes. And unfortunately this blockbuster interview has not yet been picked up by mainstream (corporate) media. I'm eagerly awaiting the web release of this show.

Thanks again Charlie!

A.J. Stevens  04/28/2007 01:22 AM Report

Hi Charlie

The show tonight was very illuminating.

Everyone was shadow dancing around the central

issue. Does no one recall Macnamara's famous

mea culpa about the real reason for U.S.

involvement in Vietnam? Flash foward 35 years

and the reason is the same: the big bucks guys

around the president aspire to be the new

management of Iraq. There are billions in corporate revenue at stake.

The present administration does not even truly desire to win the war. A walkover was their main hope, with a free (slave) workforce at their mercy, but simply stretching out the time frame of the war is also profitable. The

real reason for the war in Iraq is and always was money. The WMD explanation was a fig leaf: opportunistic, cynical and phony.

Perhaps you could do a story about the auto trade in Bahgdad to test my hypothesis: who buys vehicles, who sells, and how is traffic flow (not) controlled may prove the case. We (indirectly) give the insurgents the rope to hang us with. Politics prevent a positive outcome for us. Our controlled media are

mostly complicit, but shows like yours give

me some hope.

Rather than cutting off funding for the troops, the Congress should defund Halliburton. That is probably the fastest road

to disengagement in Iraq.

A.J. Stevens

Lance  04/27/2007 11:55 PM Report

For those who suggested, after the interview with Bush, that Charlie was washed-up, this episode makes clear that he is, in fact, as sharp as ever. The way that he pushes Brennan, in particular, on Tenet's willingness to tell the President what he really thought years ago, is classic Charlie. As others suggested, then, Bush's handlers likely permitted the interview only on the condition that Charlie would go easy. But again - and we have to wonder, especially after a typical show like tonight's - why did Charlie agree to that? Isn't he above that? And isn't he past the point where he might check his language to get access? He can - and does - talk to anyone. Even if not often top administration folks, he can usually get to their advisers, in or out of government. So why do it? Doesn't Charlie owe his viewers an explanation?